Posts Tagged ‘Fox News Channel’

The Mueller Report: I read it for you, but you should read it yourself. pt. 1

May 16, 2019

Redacted Reactions to the Redacted Mueller Report: I read it so you don’t have to, but you really should. Part One

 

“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

——Special Counsel Robert S Mueller III, Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election

 

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Reading the redacted Mueller report is a lot like watching an R-rated movie on television when you were a kid and your parents didn’t let you see the original version in the theater. You can still get a lot of the experience. You know the crimes are pretty bad, the villains are villainous, and somebody just got screwed; but you’re pretty sure you’re not getting the whole experience, and whether it’s for titillation or for actual context that would make the rest more comprehensible, you want that whole experience. In that analogy, the Barr summary is your parent saying, “You don’t need to see that filthy version. Trust me, he says “Yippee-ki-yay Mr. Falcon” in the original too. Really, it’s all pretty boring, and you should just forget about it. And who wants to see a bunch of monkey-loving snakes on a monkey-loving plane anyway? It’s just silly. Just watch the movies I recommend; they’re better and I’ve checked them out to make sure there’s nothing that will confuse you at your young age. Trust me.” And somehow the oft-repeated “Trust me,” and the implication that you can’t handle the truth unless it’s been baby-birded for you by your parental authority figure just makes you want to see the original for yourself even more. So it is with the redacted Mueller report: what’s there is already pretty disturbing, but you sense there’s more that would either make the rest more understandable or reveal the true importance/horror what you’re being shown. And with Barr having gotten the job of reading it for you by first publishing a 16 page essay on how, without even seeing the evidence, he knows Mr. Trump didn’t do anything wrong because he’s the President and presidents can’t and don’t do anything wrong, his reassurances are as convincing as your parent telling you that “The Human Centipede” is a boring movie about bugs.

The first thing I learned from the Mueller report is that the early characterizations of it were misleading at best. It does not, for example, “totally exonerate” the Trump campaign even on the issue of conspiracy to defraud the U.S.A. It generally uses less committal phrases, like “did not substantiate” or “were unable to reach a conclusion.” In fact, there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence and other agencies. The report concluded that little short of an explicit quid pro quo would be likely to win a conviction, and much of the coordination between Russia and the GOP was implicit. That is not to say that there were no crimes; it is only to say that DOJ guidelines led Mueller to only recommend charges if he were sure of a conviction, and that nothing short of a recorded statement between two people saying something like, “Hey, I have a great idea for how we could fix the election and then give you Ukraine in exchange; it’s illegal but let’s do it anyway” would hold up. Trump’s campaign chairman and Russian oligarchs did, for example, discuss dividing Ukraine, but other members of the team were too uninterested to follow up. Kushner and Don Jr. among others did hold a secret meeting with Russian representatives and then lie about it, knowing that the meeting was about Russian efforts to help Mr. Trump win the election; but Mueller concluded that most of the Trump Team were too ignorant to definitely know what they were doing was illegal and too arrogant to ask a lawyer or diplomat whether they should be doing this. To them it was no different than negotiating a real estate deal with Yakuza or Russian Mafia members, which they’ve done for years and saw no reason to stop. Without proof that Jared and Donnie were intelligent enough to know that dealing with a foreign government to get help winning an American election is not only immoral and unpatriotic but also illegal, Mueller didn’t feel he could show criminal intent. But “we couldn’t prove it because Manafort and others blatantly lied,” or “we weren’t sure they knew they were breaking the law even though they lied to hide what they’d done,” or “we determined that it wasn’t worth the trouble to prosecute these crimes because we weren’t sure of getting a conviction” is something less than “total exoneration.”

At the same time, things apparently aren’t quite as bad as I and many others had feared. Yes, the Republican Administration is just as petty, venial, greedy, selfish, deceitful and unpatriotic as we thought; but they’re also disorganized and disloyal and often just plain dumb. They stab each other in the back, or work at cross purposes due to lack of communication and different personal agendas. For example, Erik Prince discussed how he worked to set up a covert back channel between the Trump campaign and Russia, only to have Bannon ignore his reported early success due to disinterest. He either failed to understand how significant this opportunity was, or it didn’t fit into his plans for the coming civil war between liberals and white nationalists; in any case, he wasn’t upset because it was illegal or deceitful or upset at all, but merely bored.

The coordination between Putin and the Trump team was something like a tango; the partners don’t verbally communicate, but respond to each other’s movements to stay in sync. One side would give hints and the other would act on the perceived hints, but rarely were words spoken that could come back in court as evidence. If Trump said he hoped something would happen or his people said they needed something, Russia would provide it without explicitly being asked. But much of this was one-way; Russia was working to provide the Trump campaign with whatever it needed, but when they came back hoping to capitalize on the good will they’d earned they found that no one on the Trump team had a plan of how to help them. They couldn’t even find anyone with the authority to answer their questions except for those, like Bannon, who had their own agendas and were too busy to respond.

Furthermore, by the time Putin’s people came along to try to build bridges to the Trump administration, they found that he was so weakened that he was unable to respond. Mueller repeatedly mentions that some representative of Putin would approach some Trump advisor with plans for Ukraine or Syria or lifting sanctions on some oligarch, only to be told that the Trump team was under too much scrutiny due to its perceived pro-Russian attitude and Putin’s pro-Trump attitude. As Spock says in Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, “Only Nixon could go to China.” Nixon was well-known as a Red-baiter, hostile to Communists whether they were American, Russian or Chinese. Therefore, when he unexpectedly opened negotiations with the People’s Republic of China, no one seriously thought he was betraying his nation for his own ends. Trump is no Nixon, at least in that sense. He and his family boasted for years about how much business they did with Russia and Russian oligarchs, and everyone knew that the Trump-Kushner Syndicate would make a significant profit if U.S. sanctions were lifted. Trump has borrowed heavily from Russian sources, and pursued deals like the Moscow Trump Tower project which he then lied about to the American people. Thus, he is compromised, an easy target for blackmail or more subtle pressure. And therefore, any time Putin made an effort to reap the rewards of his success (in Moscow they said “Putin won” when Trump won), he was told “we’re too weak now, we can’t be seen as being too friendly to you.”

So those of us who thought of Trump as “Putin’s Puppet” were too worried, according to the Mueller report. The Trump team is too chaotic and incompetent to carry out a decent conspiracy. As one of their surrogates puts it, they can’t even collude with each other, so how could they possibly collude with Russia? Mueller backs up Graham on that assessment. And when they might want to collude, they are too afraid of seeming like Russian stooges to risk doing very much. Mueller describes multiple efforts by Putin to follow up on his success in installing Trump, but concludes that they have foundered not because the Republicans were patriotic or even minimally honest, but simply that they were incapable.

Aside from this, there is little surprising in the first half of the Mueller report: depressing, distressing, but not surprising. Most of it has been reported in the mainstream media, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, BBC, public radio and television, even occasionally on FOX News if you avoid the prime-time pundits and the Dawn of the Sycophants and stick to Shepherd Smith and Chris Wallace and the rest of the “News” division. Mueller’s investigation largely supports the reports of what Trump calls “Fake News,” showing time and again that the facts support the actual news media reports and that, when put under oath and confronted with the facts, even Trump’s employees admit this. By contrast, having sorted through a great deal of evidence, including electronic records, sworn statements from multiple witnesses and so on, the Trump/GOP assertions have been show to be false more often than not. Between the flat-out perjury, the public lies that get quietly retracted when under oath, the half-truths that later get corrected again and still turn out to be misleading, and the assertions based on arrogant ignorance, the Mueller report makes clear that you should not believe anything from Team Trump, whether it comes from the Trump Crime Family, the conservative media echo chamber, or the GOP as a whole. So while Mueller has shown that the GOP Congress and White House are failing to protect American sovereignty and democracy, or even actively working against these as far as they are capable, there is still one pillar of American democracy that the report suggests is doing its job fairly well under the circumstances: the free press.

An open letter to a FOX News viewer

November 8, 2017

I’m writing this to a family member who, I’m told, has been posting FOX News.  Perhaps you also have a loved one who needs intervention; if so, I hope this helps.  Friends don’t let friends drive news cycles.

Part 1:  I’ve been told you’re posting links to FOX News.  Those of us who share your concern that Donald Trump is destroying conservatism in this country, and destroying this country, wonder why you would start repeating stories from a source that dedicates itself to promoting his virtue, accomplishments and authority even when these claims are contradicted by his crimes, vices, failures, bullying, lying, pettiness and proud, profound ignorance.  I thought I would take the opportunity to remind you, and others, about “the FOX News Effect:”

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#609265ce12ab

There are many other reports, but these two cover things pretty well, and so far as I know neither can be accused of liberal bias.  It is simply a fact that FOX News viewers, on average, are less informed, and less willing to become informed, than people who watch no news at all, according to some research; other less thorough studies suggest that perhaps they aren’t more ignorant than the totally uninformed, but still know less (while thinking they know more) than NPR listeners, PBS watchers, or even CNN consumers.  There are some important caveats:

  1.  MSNBC viewers do not do much better.  The problem seems to be not so much right vs. left, but right hemisphere vs. left hemisphere.  FOX and MSNBC are both partisan, serving up lots of slanted, emotionally appealing news stories to their chosen niches while avoiding stories that might challenge their narratives.  The right side of the brain is more involved with the emotions; the left side is more analytical, logical, and factual.  The partisan news media, whether left-wing or right-wing, appeal more to people who do not value facts or critical thinking, and encourage people not to try.
  2. As the Forbes article points out, correlation is not causation.  We’ve done little research to find whether FOX viewers are ignorant to start, or whether viewing FOX makes them ignorant.

At the same time, there are reports like this:  http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs and https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives and https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

What these suggest are:

  1.  Either smarter, better-educated and better-informed people tend to be more liberal, or being liberal makes you smarter.  Conservatives tend to be more gullible, either because they are less educated and informed, or because they tend to be more trusting.  Conservatives are more authoritarian, more trusting of people seen as leaders; and they are more group-oriented, more inclined to trust people within group boundaries and inclined to distrust outsiders.  That’s not intended as an insult; it’s a psychological and definitional fact.  To be a social conservative is to be anti-multicultural and more respectful of authorities and institutions, whether they are Rush Limbaugh’s “dittoheads” or the people who won’t watch the NFL because players “disrespect the flag.”  That does not mean they respect all authority, but they do respect the authorities that they accept more uncritically than liberals do.  Liberals tend to be more skeptical, more cynical, and more willing to accept ambiguity and open questions.
  2. Being too extreme either way could be bad, but the liberal echo chamber is less impermeable and less effective than the conservative one.  The false news manufacturer had more trouble creating fake liberal news, because eventually some liberal would fact-check him; conservatives were far more likely to keep repeating a story that was factually false, but which fit their preconceptions and which seemed to be endorsed by a trustworthy authority (i.e. a leader of their group as opposed to an outsider).

Part 2:  The particular news story in this case illustrates much of the problem.  The story is originally reported as “Michelle Obama Speaks At Obama Foundation Summit.”  http://abc7chicago.com/politics/michelle-obama-speaks-at-obama-foundation-summit-in-chicago/2591352/ The original story, reported by the local news, mentioned how this was a meeting of young future leaders from around the world, how entertainers and artists as well as people in the political realm made speeches intended to advise and inspire, and Michelle Obama was one who spoke with a message encouraging young women in particular to be self-confident and to seek to be a positive force in the world.  The article also mentions, towards the end, that she advised young people to think twice before posting their opinions on social media.  This was at the end of a report that discussed comments from Manuel-Lin Miranda, Chance the Rapper and President Obama, as well as mentioning performances by other artists.  Overall, the event appears to have been a very large, star-studded, exciting and positive experience for those who attended.

CNN reported the same event somewhat differently:  “Michelle Obama to Young People:  Never Tweet (sort of)” http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/01/politics/michelle-obama-chicago-twitter-men/index.html.  The CNN report barely mentions the event, doesn’t mention any of the other events or participants at all outside the interview, and presented it more as a slap at the Tweeter-In-Chief than as simply advice to young people.  It then goes on to discuss other advice and encouragement she gave to the participants, and particularly to young women.  She discusses how most societies today are traditionally dominated by men, and that often women are overlooked, harassed or exploited by some men.  This is made easier because the traditional upbringing for young girls is to be nurturing and supportive, to take care of others; Michelle urged her hearers to find their own voice and their own destiny.

FOX News seems to be reporting on a different event:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/01/michelle-obama-says-men-are-entitled-self-righteous-because-women-protect-them-too-much.html.  Not only is there barely any mention of the event and no mention of other participants, there is hardly any discussion of anything Ms. Obama actually said.  This isn’t fake news; she did say the things that are discussed, but they are edited and spun to seem more like the rants of a castrating harridan than the advice of an accomplished and educated woman of color speaking to other young women starting out on the path she has traveled.  There is no mention of her advice to avoid blasting your unedited and thoughtless opinions into cyberspace, which CNN presented as an attack on Donald Trump since he does exactly that; and there is little mention of anything else she said.  The only part of the event that receives any real attention in the FOX story is her comments on males and females.  They report:

“It’s like the problem in the world today is we love our boys, and we raise our girls,” Obama said. “We raise them to be strong, and sometimes we take care not to hurt men — and I think we pay for that a little bit.”

This is presented as an unjustified slam at men, who feel “entitled” and “self-righteous” but who are in fact being unjustly maligned.

It seems pretty clear that there is some spinning going on.  The event was not, as CNN implies, simply a Trump-bashing; nor was it simply two days of man-bashing.  The local news presented Michelle Obama’s discussion as a positive and empowering message for young women, the culmination of two days and multiple speakers and artists reaching out to these delegates.  Both cable news services edited the event to fit their own narratives:  one, the “this president is a twittering fool” narrative, and the other the “liberals be hating men” narrative.  Both left a lot on the cutting room floor to emphasize what they wanted.

Of the two spins, even FOX has been jumping on the Harvey Weinstein story, so it’s more than a little hypocritical of them to act as if these comments about “entitled” men are totally unjustified.  And given their own problems (Ailes, Stone, O’Reilly etc.) it’s a little self-serving of them to simply pretend that too many men feel morally empowered and socially entitled to “grab’em by the pussy” anytime they want, while perhaps other men wish they, too, were powerful and famous so they could do the same.  In fact, as J.S. Mill and Harriet Taylor pointed out a century ago, whenever any system is dominated by one group for a long time, the values of that system will tend to reflect the interests of that group.  For hundreds, even thousands of years young girls have been raised to please and care for others, particularly males.  Until about a hundred years ago, women could not vote, own property, work without the permission of their husbands or (if unmarried) oldest male relative, and those norms hold today in many parts of the world.  And even in the U.S. the idea that women should be subservient and unthreatening to men is powerful.  For example, Donald Trump divorced his first wife because he heard her on the phone talking to people doing business with Trump Inc. and thought she sounded “harsh.”  He said she lost her “softness” when she began working in his business, and that he wasn’t able to see her as a woman once he heard her raise her voice on the phone with someone who was doing business with the Trump casino (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-1994-putting-wife-work-dangerous-thing/story?id=39537935).  So it seems more than a little disingenuous to pretend that no men think women should focus on taking care of their men first, and themselves second.

The CNN spin, by contrast, is definitely a spin, but does not seem obviously false to the speaker’s intent.  But even if she were totally ignorant of the fact that Trump broadcasts his own unfiltered and often misinformed views, with spelling and grammatical errors that make them look silly even if they aren’t, the fact that she was warning this group of young future leaders to not do what the current president* does would be at least worth noting.  A president of a major nation is supposed to be a role model, not a cautionary tale.  But to imply that it was the main intent of Michelle Obama’s comments is also a falsification.  Yes, she spoke to young people who might be inclined to “tell it like it is” by tweeting without thinking.  Yes, she spoke to young men who might feel inclined to try to dominate and mistreat women, and to young women who might feel inclined to keep quiet and not stand up for themselves.  But her main intent was not to divide and not to discuss anyone who wasn’t actually in the room; rather, her focus was on providing advice and inspiration to young people who hopefully would make their lives forces for positive change in the world.  So both cable news channels were somewhat distorting the original event for their own editorial reasons, but the conservatives were more misleading and uninformative.

Part 3:  “The FOX News Effect,” then, is that viewers of FOX News and other right-wing news organizations are often more ignorant than people who pay attention to no news in particular.  While the apathetic may be uninformed, FOX viewers are often misinformed.  In some cases, this may be flat-out fictions or speculations presented as fact, as in Pizzagate or the Seth Rich story.  This story about Michelle Obama seems to be an example not so much of lying, but vigorous spinning of actual facts.  Yes, Michelle said those words, though they are neither obviously false nor as vicious as suggested.  People who get their news only from FOX are naturally mystified why Michelle Obama hates men and why Crooked Hillary hasn’t been arrested; they’ve heard only a mix of slanted news and the occasional deliberate falsehood, leaving them not ignorant, but misinformed:  not zero knowledge but negative.  Furthermore, they are emotionally agitated, which is the enemy of sound thought and reflection.

The FOX News Effect has been magnified by four further factors:

  1.  The Social Media Effect:  Trump supporters are far more likely to find even FOX News too “mainstream/lamestream” for their tastes, and to report that they get most of their news from Facebook, Twitter, private web sites, blogs and so on.  These are even less well researched, less vetted, and more biased than partisan cable news.
  2. The Falwell Effect:  Conservative religious “authorities,” such as Paula White, Jerry Falwell Jr, Pat Robertson and other Christian Dominionists and Prosperity Gospel preachers, have many millions of devoted followers, and have announced that anyone who questions Donald Trump for any of his known sexual, financial or other sins is challenging the will of God.
  3. The Russia Effect:  as an instrument of state policy, Russia has flooded the world with false news stories and even funded socially divisive social movements, largely through social media and individual blogs.  Furthermore, because Russia is an authoritarian, mostly white nation with a state religion (Russian Orthodoxy), Putin and Russia have been held up by conservative media as superior to democratic and Democratic pluralism.  Thus, FOX viewers, and consumers of alt-right media, are not only not worried about Russian distortion of their news; they welcome it.
  4. The Trump Effect:  President* Donald Trump gets most of his news from FOX and Breitbart and InfoWars, ignoring the CIA, FBI and other government authorities that get their information from actually observing the world.  This turns the conservative echo chamber into an Ouroboros, where the conservative news gets its news from uncritically repeating what Trump says, who in turn is uncritically repeating what they say, turning the old news ticker-tape into a vast Mobius strip where, with a simple twist and by attaching one end to the other, what was once an ongoing narrative becomes a one-sided, infinite, closed circle.  No new ideas can come in, no disconfirming facts can break the circle, and the system runs endlessly.  It is impossible to say whether alt-right news runs the country by flooding Trump’s brain with false and misleading ideas, or he controls them by filling the news feed with his fact-free tweets and rants.

I will cite one example, current in the news, which I think illustrates all these factors.  The concept is “collusion.”  In law, this refers to an illegal conspiracy.  In common parlance, it might refer to any secret plot to deceive.  For almost the entire Trump presidency* there has been ample, objectively verified evidence that members of his inner circle and campaign colluded with agents of the Russian government to swing the election towards Trump, as part of the Russian government’s stated support for Trump.  And for years there has been objectively verified evidence that Trump Inc. has substantial financial ties to Russian oligarchs and mobsters.  This fits not only the common definition of “collusion,” but also the legal definition.  It is illegal, under American law, to receive campaign help from a foreign government.

In conservative circles, the focus has been on the Democrats.  Because of the Ouroboros circle, it is impossible to tell whether conservative news created this idea and Trump repeats it, or Trump started the claim as a way to deflect criticism and now they repeat it as news.  There are three threads in this tapestry of bullshit (I use the term philosophically, as developed by Harry Frankfurt in his tome on the subject). One thread is that since the information on Trump deals with Russia, and the researchers who did the research talked to Russians, and the anti-Trump Republicans and the Democrats paid for this opposition research on Trump, they colluded with Russia.  This is just patently false:  talking to Russians is not conspiring with the Russian government, and opposition research is a common part of elections today.  If the Democrats hired a research firm, and that firm in turn contacted a highly-respected former spy to find out things about Trump’s Russian ties, that’s legal, and thus does not qualify legally as “collusion.”  And it isn’t collusion with the Russian government in any case, but only contacts between private citizens.

The second thread, related to the first, is the so-called “Uranium Deal.”  According to this assertion, Hillary Clinton accepted a bribe to allow Russians to control American uranium production.  And yes, given that Russia has sought to ingratiate itself with everyone it could easily do so, it might have donated to the Clinton Foundation hoping for some goodwill later.  However, no actual security or energy expert has said there was any weakening of the U.S. by the takeover of this one mine.  The Russians don’t even have a license to export the uranium; it is just a Russian company that is managing the mine, which produces a small amount of the uranium used in this nation every year.  Most of our uranium is imported, so foreigners controlled it already; in this case it’s just a business deal where the uranium starts and stays in the U.S. and some money goes overseas.  And eleven other people signed off on the deal, so either there was a vast and undetected conspiracy by eleven heads of various agencies, and the employees of those agencies, or this whole thing is nonsense.

The third is perhaps the most interesting, both because it is partly true and it is ironic.  There has long been evidence that the Clinton campaign had used the levers of power within the Democratic party to favor her candidacy over that of Bernie Sanders.  That does seem to fit the popular notion of “collusion.”  It was a secret, albeit open secret, conspiracy to tilt the results of what was supposedly a fair and even competition.  It stinks.  It reminds me of the sorts of games the student government clique ran when I was in college, both for its pettiness and its arrogance.  But it is not, so far as I know, illegal.  A political party can pick its candidates however the hell it wants.  And it is certainly not collusion with a foreign power, which is what the Mueller probe is authorized to investigate as part of the FBI mandate for counter-intelligence and internal national security.  In fact, and this is the ironic part, we would not even know about this apparently legal but distasteful collusion to stiff-arm Bernie if it weren’t for the illegal and unpatriotic collusion to subvert the American political process to aid Russian aims by promoting the Trump campaign.  And at this point, it is simply a known fact that there was Russian support for the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign knew about it at the highest levels, they encouraged it, Trump himself publicly supported it, and thus there is already more evidence against Trump than they had against Nixon for eighteen months after the Watergate break-in.

But you won’t hear about this on FOX News.  What you will hear is a “news” agency that reports excessively on the legal shenanigans of some stupid and arrogant political hacks, while downplaying the illegal crimes of a current president, his family and his closest advisors.  Just as Sean Hannity once defended Cliven Bundy, a tax dodger who supports slavery and says he does “not recognize the United States as existing,” so now Hannity and the FOX (or FAUX) News agency supports and defends the indefensible actions and falsehoods of the Trump-Kushner Crime Family; or, Trump mindlessly parrots what he hears on “FOX & Friends” as if they were an independent verification of his own dreams, rather than simply repeating what he himself tweeted two hours earlier.

So, if you want to be conservative, fine.  As David Brooks said, liberal vs. conservative is an argument over how to distribute the goods of society, and that’s necessary and rational.  But seek out information sources that are themselves as rational and objective as possible.

When the Chef Thinks Like a Customer

March 4, 2017

Just when people are saying that Trump is being “presidential” at last (about the fifth time they’ve said that[1]), he unleashes another seemingly unhinged tweetstorm. Less than 48 hours since his most recent “pivot,” Trump has begun accusing former President Obama of wiretapping him.[2] Most news sources politely note that he makes this accusation “without evidence,” since “pulls another insane rant out of his ass” sounds a little too blunt. As one spokesperson was quoted saying, “This is Trump being Trump.” Jesus of Nazareth said, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.”[3] Some say he is a bully; others say he is mentally unhinged, paranoid and a malignant narcissist. What is clear is that there was not, nor will there be, a “pivot.” As Obama said before leaving office, being President doesn’t change who you are; if anything, it makes you more of what you are. Or, as CNN reports:

 

California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is also probing the scope of Russia’s influence on the US election, said in a statement Saturday afternoon in reference to one of Trump’s tweets: “If there is something bad or sick going on, it is the willingness of the nation’s chief executive to make the most outlandish and destructive claims without providing a scintilla of evidence to support them.

“No matter how much we hope and pray that this President will grow into one who respects and understands the Constitution, separation of powers, role of a free press, responsibilities as the leader of the free world, or demonstrates even the most basic regard for the truth, we must now accept that President Trump will never become that man,” Schiff said.[4]

 

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham has largely echoed this same notion, saying that if the wiretaps did happen it is one of the greatest political crimes in our history, and if it didn’t and the charges are baseless, then this itself would be the greatest crime in political history; so either way, it demands a full and complete investigation. This certainly seems to be still another random, emotion-driven and logic-deprived outburst from a man who has made a career on baseless charges against others, false claims about himself and the products he’s peddling, and so many frivolous lawsuits that he’s been termed a “libel bully.”

But perhaps there’s another explanation, besides either insanity or criminality.[5] Perhaps Trump simply reacts to whatever he hears on the news; and more specifically, the far-right blogs and talk radio that endlessly praise him, since anything less than uninterrupted groveling strikes him as “fake news.” When Trump heard a biased and misleading report on FOX News about a supposed link between immigration and crime in Sweden, Trump famously tweeted out about “what happened in Sweden last night” and asked why no one was reporting about that. The problem was, no one was reporting because there was nothing to report. Again, today, Trump heard an unsubstantiated rant from a talk-radio host hypothesizing that Obama “must” have wiretapped Trump, and Trump took this claim (which had no evidence) as itself “proof” that Obama was “sick.”

As Trevor Noah pointed out, Trump avidly consumes cable news, particularly FOX News, which gives the most favorable reports about him.[6] This is crazy, as Noah says, because the only reason we watch TV news is because we DON’T have access to all the information the President has: daily intelligence briefings, classified reports and so on. He is supposed to be making the news; instead, he is merely another consumer, no better than the rest of us and, in many cases, far worse, because he lacks the context, the background knowledge, the humility, or the impulse control to avoid publicly overreacting to reports that are obviously unsubstantiated at best, and Sasquatch-level fakes at worst.

Donald Trump is like a chef at a five-star restaurant, who got hired despite a lack of cooking experience or training because he had family connections and friends who vouched for him. Now he is supposed to be producing the best food anyone has ever tasted, to maintain the restaurant’s hard-earned reputation as a prime provider of quality taste and nutrition. Sadly, he has no idea how to do that. He could ask someone to bring him up to speed, so that he can produce at least passable dishes on his own; but instead, he orders out, gets other people’s food which someone else has prepared, and presents it as his own. And unfortunately, his head is stuffed up and thus he can’t smell or taste anything, so he really doesn’t know good food from bad; he only knows that McDonald’s is quick and easy, and he likes things that are quick, easy and predictable. So he goes to whatever information fast-food franchise he finds, including sources that claim fictitious terrorist attacks or that the Sandy Hoot massacre was a hoax, and retweets and blows up as if these things were the voice of God Himself, like a bad chef who buys day-old fishwiches from McD’s and serves them as trout almandine at his five-star restaurant.

Now, if you prefer McD’s to the Four Seasons, that’s fine. And if you prefer talk radio to news that has been vetted and fact-checked and will actually retract a mistake, it’s a free country. But when you’re President of the United States, you don’t consume the news: you make it. You make it from the raw materials of real-life events, presented for your eyes only by some of the best intelligence agencies, scientists, doctors and other experts on the planet. You have a responsibility not to blindly believe or impulsively react to what you read in the press, because you make the news and you know more than whatever the guy on the TV or radio is saying.

This is a pattern, and it reveals something important about Donald Trump’s character. Repeatedly, he has said or tweeted something that was unfounded, obviously false or at least ill-advised, in a knee-jerk reaction to something he heard. And when he is called on it, one of his more usual responses is “Someone gave me that information,” or “Many people are saying it.” In other words, he naively trusts anyone who flatters him, and then dodges responsibility because someone else said it to him, and how could he possibly be expected to know better?

It wouldn’t be hard, for an adult, a mature and intelligent person, to simply stay off Twitter, not give public speeches that haven’t been fact-checked, and in general to stop acting like a buffoon. But that would require being a chef at the information restaurant, and not a customer. And in this case, the new chef was hired because the restaurant apparently wanted to go in a “new direction;” consistently high-quality food was boring, so they brought in the winner of the Great American Bake-Off to take over rather than hire someone who trained at an actual culinary school or had worked in a kitchen before. This was supposed to “shake things up,” to “disrupt the usual model,” or to “change things.” The new head chef needs to rely on the sous chefs about what generally works, and on the wait-staff to tell him how the new dishes are being received, and so on. Eventually, he would learn both what the “usual rules” are and when to break them productively and strategically. However, that would require humility, a willingness to ask questions and take advice even from people whom he beat for the job of chef. So, instead, he orders out, buying what he is supposed to make himself: policies, and the original information on which policies are based.

And to finish this metaphor: No doubt, there will be many new customers who think that it is just great that the once-fancy five-star restaurant now serves well-done steaks with catsup, rather than the flavorful chateaubriand that make it famous. Some will be glad to eat at a restaurant that doesn’t make them feel like bad cooks because they could never do what the restaurant does; now, the food is no different than what they cook themselves, maybe even a little worse. Perhaps only the real foodies will realize immediately that the once-great restaurant is dying under its new chef, and that the only reason it has lasted this long is because of its reputation and the money it has in the bank. But sooner or later, something will happen that requires a confident, competent chef in the kitchen, and then everyone will know.

[1]   Domenico Montanaro, “Stop Using the Word ‘Pivot:’ Trump is Trump and Always Will Be Trump;”NPR March 4, 2017 (http://www.npr.org/2017/03/04/518326280/stop-using-the-word-pivot-trump-is-trump-and-will-always-be-trump)

[2] Colin Dwyer, “President Trump Accuses Obama of ‘Wire Tapping, Provides No Evidence.” NPR March 4, 2017 (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/04/518478158/president-trump-accuses-obama-of-wire-tapping-provides-no-evidence)

[3] Luke 6:45

[4] Jeremy DiamondJeff Zeleny and Shimon Prokupecz, “Trump’s Baseless Wiretap Claim,” CNN March 4, 2017 (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/04/politics/trump-obama-wiretap-tweet/index.html)

 

[5] Brian Stetler, “Stelter: Far-right Media May Fuel Trump Claims;” ;” CNN March 4, 2017 (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/04/stelter-trump-wiretapping-right-wing-media-sot-nr.cnn)

[6] “The Daily Show,” Comedy Central, January 26, 2017 (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ujnxnv/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-welcome-to-president-trump-s-reality)

White Evangelicals and the Dolezal Syndrome

August 3, 2015

White Evangelicals and the Dolezal Syndrome

 

 

I have been so busy with work that I have badly neglected my blogging duties. However, the conjunction of two events in June seems so revelatory that I can’t resist looking back.

The first event was June 11, 2015.[1] The leader of the NAACP in Spokane, WA, Rachel Dolezal, was revealed by her parents to be white, not biracial as she had claimed for years. Days later, in response to direct questions on whether she was black or white, she responded that “I identify as black.”[2] Hilarity ensued. Panelists on The Nightly Show debated whether you get to pick your ethnicity, and there and elsewhere people debated just what “race” means anyway. After all, well, Caitlyn Jenner. If a famous male athlete can identify as female and even undergo surgery, why can’t a white girl grow up to be a black woman if that is who she feels she really is on the inside? Particularly in a culture that is celebrity-fixated and science-illiterate, this seemed like a valid question (at least to someone who had never actually BEEN black). But to most people, the whole idea that you can just choose your race seemed, and still seems, dishonest or nuts. You can’t really own a history that isn’t yours, no matter how much you may love a culture or identify with the experiences of those who did live that history.

When one white person attempts to claim the black experience as her own, it seems hilarious to many; but what if millions of white people do the same thing? On June 17, 2015, six days after the Dolezal story hit the 24 Hour News Cycle, a young white man walked into the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC and killed nine people. No one who had paid any attention to any of the available facts had any doubt what had happened. After all, the vile, “insane” words of the killer were in fact no different than words that might have been heard on the street anywhere in the South when I was born in 1960: You rape our women, you are ruining our country, you have to go. For a century after the end of the Civil War, thoughts like these were not considered “insane” among Southern whites. They might have been seen as ignorant or bad taste, particularly among the more educated and wealthier folk I grew up around; but we all knew that these views were quite common. Even as a white child in Florida, I knew there were other parts of the state where crosses still burnt at night. They were terrorists, and they worried me even though I knew I wasn’t one of their prime targets. So yes, about ten minutes after the events happened, I knew exactly what had occurred. I am too good a philosopher to say I had 100% knowledge that soon, but I at least knew that the motivation was almost certainly racial hatred.

America’s Most Popular News Provider, however, got it stunningly, depressingly, and completely predictably wrong.[3] To them, and presumably to their target audience as well, the only thing that was clear was that this attack was in a church; therefore, the attack was not against black people, but against Christians. That is, this shooting was against “us,” not in the sense that FOX News felt solidarity with the victims but rather in the sense that it was stealing their identity and claiming it for themselves. A veritable parade of Evangelicals stepped up to echo the claim that Christians, the largest religious group in this nation, are under attack.   It is an odd persecution we Christians are enduring. We are over-represented in Congress, with 92% of Congress identifying as Christian while only 73% of Americans overall do.[4] At the state and local levels, our dominance is often even stronger. Recent court rulings have even given us the right to open taxpayer-funded public political meetings with Christian prayers, thus compelling Jews, Hindus, Atheists and others to spend their tax money to honor and invoke our religion.[5] Much has been made of the rise in violent attacks on churches.[6] However, even in the news reports of this disturbing trend, it is reported that more than half of these so-called attacks upon Christianity were actually domestic or personal disputes that were settled in churches. What this report seems to suggest, then, is that in a violent culture, churches are not immune; but of the 75 dead reported in 2013, less than half were targeted specifically because they were Christian. Furthermore, a reported 135 “deadly force incidents” doesn’t sound so bad considering the roughly 350,000 religious congregations in this country.[7] By contrast, consider the violence directed at, say, abortion clinics.[8] In Wisconsin in 2012, one of three Planned Parenthood clinics that offered abortion services was bombed.[9] If one in three churches were bombed, we would hardly be able to walk outside for fear of the shrapnel.

Compared to what our Christian ancestors endured, saying that we today are being persecuted is a joke. Compared to what Christians around the world are enduring in many parts of Africa and Asia, it is an insult to their martyrdom. Why, then, did so many white (and some non-white) Evangelicals leap to the conclusion that the Charlotte shootings were an attack on faith, part of a larger cultural war against Christianity?

Really, ever since Constantine the Great legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire in 313, Christians have faced a dilemma. Suffering for the faith has been central since the earliest days of Christianity. The Gospel of Luke even goes so far as to report that not only did Jesus say, “Blessed are you when men curse you for the sake of the Son of Man;” he also said, “Woe to you when all speak well of you.”[10] But when the Roman persecution ended, it became increasingly difficult to find ways to suffer for the sake of the Son of Man. By 380, Christianity became not only legal, but the only legal religion in the Empire; being Christian became the path not to suffering, but to safety and prosperity. How can we Christians possibly suffer for the faith, when we are the ones running the world?

There have been two standard answers for that riddle. One is some sort of additional asceticism, either monasticism (in Catholic and Orthodox traditions) or joining a strict, possibly separatist denomination (for Protestants). But there is another, easier answer: delusion. There are two styles of this. One is to interpret something one would be doing anyway as a divine command. The holy warrior who kills his (or her) enemies and seeks glory and power, personally or for some group, is one of these; not only do I get to indulge my hatred, I get to present the Almighty with a bill for my services. (The culture warrior is simply a toothless version of this, fighting for his or her preferred mores and, by selective editing of the Scriptures, fighting to defend the parts that condemn others, like “the gays,” while ignoring the parts that apply to himself or herself, like the books of Amos and Luke). The other, and more perfect example, simply takes events that have nothing to do with one’s faith and interpreting them as religious suffering.

And now we come to the full-blown persecution complex. A group of people were targeted for a hate crime, which is to say they were victims of a terrorist attack aimed to injure not only them but all people belonging to their group. They were targeted because they were black, and the attack was intended to terrify all black people. To pretend this was an attack on white Evangelicals is like claiming the 9/11 attacks were part of a vendetta against the airline industry. It is as if the Iranians had come out on Sept. 12, 2001 with the announcement, “Al Qaeda is attacking airplanes; we have airplanes too so we are the victims here. The fact that those planes yesterday were full of Americans and crashed into American buildings is just a coincidence; after all, they didn’t kill Americans in malls or grocery stores, but on airplanes.” That is exactly the sort of logic that led FOX News to say that since the Charleston shootings took place at a black church and not a black disco, it was chosen because it was a church and not because of the people inside. The only difference is that if the Iranians had said that, we would have immediately been outraged and known it was intended as an insult; but we apparently expect less from FOX News and the Religious Right, so we accept that their stupidity is genuine.

Evangelicals know the Bible says they are supposed to be persecuted; but they are in fact wealthier and more politically dominant in this country than anywhere else in the world. Overall, they seem to have even more influence than their vast numerical advantage alone would explain. Black Christians have a better situation than do Christians in many parts of the world, and racism in this country is undoubtedly less than it was fifty or a hundred years ago; but as Dylann Roof shows, those racist impulses are still alive, and the same rhetoric that was used to inspire lynchings when I was born can be used to inspire shootings today. While white Evangelicals might want to believe they are targeted for discrimination, black people actually are still red-lined and segregated, even if it is not as totally as it was and not legally required.[11] By claiming that Dylann Roof was targeting white Evangelicals, FOX News was able to ramp up the anxiety level among its target audience, making them all the more eager to keep watching FOX for news of the latest threats (and more willing to spend their money on gold futures and other high-risk, low-return apocalypse insurance schemes that advertise heavily on conservative news outlets). And by arguing and believing that Roof was attacking them, white Evangelicals were able to appropriate the suffering and persecution of the black victims for themselves, without having to actually suffer or be persecuted in any meaningful sense. And there doesn’t seem to be anything consciously cynical about this impulse to assume their own victimhood; they seem to be at least as sincere in believing that they too were shot at by Dylann Roof as Rachel Dolezal was in her assertion that she “identifies as black.”

It’s one thing to play the race card; it’s another thing to steal the race card from the deck and slip it into your hand. But if Ms. Dolezal did that for her own personal reasons, FOX News attempted to do so on behalf of millions of white Evangelicals. They chose to “identify as” Dylann Roof’s victims, even though birth and social circumstances make that impossible. And just as Rachel Dolezal became a punch-line by claiming to “identify as black,” the cultural leaders of the Religious Right make themselves and their loyal followers ridiculous. We cannot know the full effect of feeding this persecution complex. Certainly it will affect voting patters and thus public policy, replacing rational consideration that might actually solve the problems we face with paranoid defensiveness. It will make the rest of society regard the Religious Right as millions of Little Boys Who Cried Wolf, and thus quite likely make it less, not more likely that others will be willing to address legitimate concerns they raise. And we can be sure that by encouraging white Evangelicals to seek comfortable, socially dominant lives while simultaneously telling them that they are persecuted martyrs for Christ, FOX News and the leadership of the religious right will create millions more Rachel Dolezals, privileged white people who imagine that they are themselves the impoverished victims of oppression that Jesus calls all his followers to become.

[1] Taylor Viydo, “Parents ‘Out’ NAACP Leader as White Woman;” USA Today June 12, 2015 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/12/spokane-naacp-president-ethnicity-questions/71110110/)

[2] Eun Kyung Kim, “Rachel Dolezal Breaks Her Silence on TODAY: ‘I Identify as Black’.” June 16, 2015 (http://www.today.com/news/rachel-dolezal-speaks-today-show-matt-lauer-after-naacp-resignation-t26371

[3] Michael Allen, “Fox News: South Carolina Shooting of Black People was ‘Attack on Faith,’ not Race;” Opposing Views, June 20, 2015 (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/fox-news-south-carolina-shooting-black-people-was-attack-faith-not-race-video)

[4] Antonia Blumberg, “A Look at the Religious Make-Up of the 114th Congress;” The Huffington Post, Jan. 5, 2015 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/congress-religious-affiliation_n_6417074.html)

[5] Lauren Markoe and Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Supreme Court Approves Sectarian Prayer at Public Meetings;” Washington Post, May 5, 2014 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/supreme-court-approves-sectarian-prayer-at-public-meetings/2014/05/05/62c494da-d487-11e3-8f7d-7786660fff7c_story.html)

[6] “Deaths from Church Attacks in US Rise 36 Percent;” CBNNews.com, Jan. 31, 2013 (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/January/Deaths-from-Church-Attacks-in-US-Rise-36-percent-/)

[7] “Fast Facts about American Religion,” Hartford Institute for Religion Research, (http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html#numcong) accessed July 29, 2015

[8] “Violence and Harrassment at U.S. Abortion Clinics;” Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm) accessed July 29, 2015

[9] Laura Bassett, “Planned Parenthood Bombing Suspect Arrested in Wisconsin;” May 3, 2012 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/planned-parenthood-bombing-wisconsin_n_1400449.html)

[10] Luke 6:22, 26

[11] Jamelle Bouie, “A Tax on Blackness: Racism is Still Rampant in Real Estate;Slate, May 13, 2015 (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/racism_in_real_estate_landlords_redlining_housing_values_and_discrimination.html)

A Gamer Looks at Politics: the government shutdown (pt. iv)

October 16, 2013

A Gamer Looks at Politics:  the government shutdown (pt. iv)

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

—-Gary North

 

Thus far, I have tried to discuss the strategy of the Republican party by looking at its moves.  I have shared my impression that their opposition to health care reform was a political tactic to attempt to win the White House, a tactic which failed; and now, faced with the consequence of having lost their best chance to meaningfully influence the health care debate, they are attempting to derail all reform efforts as part of their ongoing presidential campaigning.  In order to regain the leverage they threw away, they are engaged in political brinksmanship, threatening to essentially destroy the United States as the preeminent nation on the planet unless they are allowed to dictate the terms of its survival.

All of this assumes, however, that the GOP actually wants the nation to survive.  Some clearly are patriots; whether you agree or disagree with their policies, it is obvious that there are millions of Americans, from the rank-and-file to some of the leaders, who deeply love this nation.  In fact, some studies have shown that the more deeply someone loves the symbols of the nation, or the more deeply someone is grateful to the military for its work defending the nation, or the more generally patriotic a person is, the more likely it is that this person will be conservative.  This is not surprising; the person who loves what the nation is will naturally want to conserve it, while the one who wants radical change is likely not to feel any great commitment to things that are or have been.  This does not, however, prove that Republicans as a whole, or as a party, are more or less in love with the nation than are Democrats.

Many Republicans openly doubt that Democrats are committed to this nation.  They view the Democrats as a collection of gays, racial minorities, feminists, non-Christians and the poor who care only about their own little group.  However, when you add up the list of people who are seen as “other” by the people Sarah Palin referred to as “real America,” you find that the really real America is in fact that polyglot, cacophonous amalgam.  No doubt there are still many millions with allegiance more to their own group than to the nation; but for the most part, the old revolutionaries of my childhood have stopped trying to chop holes in the hull of the ship of state, and now spend their energies wrestling over the wheel.

The GOP, on the other hand, has become an alliance of groups that openly admit they do not have the best interests of the nation at heart, if “the nation” is the United States, established according to the Constitution and governed by principles of representative democracy.  For the last forty years, one of the most powerful blocs within the Republican party has been the Evangelicals, or so-called “social conservatives.”  They are impelled by a range of motives.  Some simply love Jesus and seek to express their faith as they understand it.  Some believe that the problems of the nation will be solved if everyone becomes an Evangelical.  Of these, there are two main types:  social conformists and Deuteronomistic patriots.™[1]  Social conformists believe that the greatest problems facing the nation are social division and disagreement; if everyone would just have the same values and goals, all our other problems would quickly vanish. The Deuteronomistic patriots, by contrast, are those Evangelicals whose patriotism is shaped by the view of history that underlies the “Deutonomistic History” in the Old Testament.  The Deuteronomistic History includes the books of First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings, and outlines how God blessed Israel when it followed the covenant with God as described in Deuteronomy, and cursed it when the people broke the covenant.  This way of thinking holds that if the United States suppressed “sin” (such as homosexuality and female equality) then God would protect the nation from harm.[2]  This may be superstition and may be a reaction to the free-floating anxiety many feel, but it is not essentially anti-American.

Many Evangelicals, however, have little allegiance to the United States, precisely because they are Evangelicals.  Many are eschatological anarchists.  They do not care what happens to the United States or the world, because this world is the realm of Satan.  Any strong governmental or quasi-governmental power is likely the future tool of the Antichrist.  Better to have war, genocide, persecution and mass rape than to have the blue-helmets of the United Nations rolling across the landscape with their ever-efficient and all-powerful “Peacekeeper” armies, imposing the world dictatorship of their Secretary General (see the Left Behind books and movies).  Wars, earthquakes, famine, ecological and political disasters are all signs of the End Times, and therefore a good thing; and in particular, war in the Middle East shows that we are one step closer to Armageddon, when Jesus will finally return to rule the world.  Of course, eschatological believers don’t expect to actually have to endure most of these horrors they wish to unleash; they expect the Rapture to carry them away into Heaven before the seas become lifeless and the skies burn (whether from nuclear war, global warming or the star Wormwood).

The other powerful group within Evangelical political thinking are the Dominionists.  This group expects that the kingdom that Jesus will establish for his followers will be on this Earth, once Christians have replaced the representative democracy of the Constitution with a theocracy.  They openly proclaim that they intend to use the democratic institutions to undermine democracy, since democracy means allowing rights to non-evangelicals of all sorts.[3]  To the Christian Dominionist (particularly according to the Christian Reconstructionism advocated by Gary North and Rousas Rushdoony) anything that weakens any aspect of the United States as it exists today is good, because that will help create the power vacuum into which the true followers of Jesus can take over.  They promote the politics and economic theories of Ayn Rand (while ignoring the fact that Rand thought all religious believers were nut jobs more dangerous even than the Communists) because her sort of extreme laissez-faire capitalism means a weak central government unable to prevent a theocratic revolution.  They promote the destruction of all government social services, because they want people to depend entirely on churches for education, health care, and help for the elderly.  They seek to replace public education with homeschooling and religious schools, and promote state vouchers to divert funds from the public school system as a way to weaken it.  They promote fear and hatred of Muslims and other religions, because they want Christianity to be the ruling religious and political power.  They despise most other Christians because the vast majority of Christians would oppose their plans to impose a Mosaic Covenant theocracy on the nation.

To the Evangelical Anarchists, a debt default would be quite literally a godsend, something they will unhesitatingly work towards.  The eschatologists expect to be snatched up into Heaven as the economic and political chaos begins.  The Christian Reconstructionists want to cause political anarchy so they can take over; a national default will force a bankrupt America to shut down, leaving them to take over all functions of government.  And for every self-conscious Christian Anarchist, there are countless others in the Religious Right who endorse these policies without realizing the intent behind them or the inevitable conclusion that would follow if these policies were ever fully implemented.

A second group that has recently coalesced to sabotage democracy is the neo-Confederates, a.k.a. “Tea Party.”[4]            We can argue that the Tea Party is a fraud created by FOX News to gin up ratings (who can forget the footage of a FOX news producer leading the crowds in anti-government chants at a Tea Party rally?[5]) and financed by billionaires seeking tax breaks and weakened consumer protection laws, or that the Tea Party is just a rebranding of the Religious Right.[6]  However, it is also a revival of the political theories and, to a large degree, the aspirations of the Confederacy.  Much of its political theory rests on the writings of John C. Calhoun, the South Carolinian politician who fought long and hard for the preservation of slavery and the rights of Southern states to preserve their “peculiar institution” despite the fact that the pro-slavery vote was a minority view among voters nationwide.[7]  His theories, particularly the Tea Party favorite, “state nullification,” were designed to empower a white population that feared being overrun by non-whites; and even today, the racist motivations of Calhoun’s doctrine haunt Tea Party political thinking like some covert possession by the ghost of the Old South.  In fact, focus group studies have found that racial fears motivate much of the GOP rank-and-file.[8]  There is a widespread perception that “real America” is being swallowed up by racial minorities, gays, non-Christians, and generally people who are not the core Republican demographic:  whites, particularly older white males.  When the Old South saw that its traditional ways were being threatened by increased immigration and the voting strength of the North, Southern politicians like Calhoun began to argue that their states had a right to either leave the Union outright, or to simply ignore all national laws they didn’t like.  Today, the neo-Confederates see the future, where gays can get married and whites will be a minority and Muslims will soon reach 2% of the population and become the second-largest religious group in America; and they don’t like that future any more than Calhoun liked the idea of blacks voting.  It isn’t usually hatred, exactly; I wouldn’t call it “racism” as much as “xenophobia.”  It is just a fear that these new voters will change things for the worse, that they are not yet ready for the rights and burdens of democracy, and that their political aspirations have to be suppressed until they are.  And if it takes wrecking the greatest superpower the world has ever seen to save that romanticized, “Father Knows Best” world a little longer, that is a small price to pay.

As a game player, all of this does make a certain sense to me.  After all, as I look at the moves and try to determine the strategies of both parties, it certainly seems as if one party is consistently pushing the nation closer and closer to a complete breakdown.  Why do that, if you seriously love this nation and want to preserve it?  Simply because of a misreading of Ayn Rand?[9]  Or is their patriotism more like the love a weak, insecure man professes for his wife right before beating her, until he finally kills her rather than lose control of her?  Or, perhaps, is the solution to the mystery to reject the initial premise, that they love America at all?

Plato compared the state to a ship, and the leader to a captain.  If the GOP is the would-be captain, then Calhoun is the iceberg-lover who drew its chart; the Tea Party is the First Mate who wants to crash the vessel against as many icebergs as it takes to sink it; and the Religious Right is the pilot who believes that ramming through icebergs is the only way to reach Tahiti.  It seems logical, given the fact that we have seen the GOP steer straight for the iceberg of default more than once, to conclude that at least part of its strategy is dictated by groups that really want to sink the ship.  Perhaps the best analogy is something like “Betrayal at House on the Hill,”  “Battlestar Galactica” or “Are You a Werewolf?”   Some of the players are trying to solve the problem, but one or more are actually trying to sabotage the group.  Ostensibly, they seem to be cooperating; but when the moment is right the traitor turns on them and tries to feed the whole group to the monsters or robots or whatever.

As I write this, the news is that the Senate is struggling to find a plan to avoid default on the national debt and reopen the government, while the Tea Party, or anarchists, or neo-Confederates, or Cylons or werewolves (choose your term) in the House of Representatives argue that default is not a bad thing after all, and is certainly better than allowing Obama to win by letting the Affordable Care Act begin to go into effect.   Putting everything together and reflecting on the results, it seems very likely that the Tea Party will refuse any real compromise, demanding either surrender or default.  Most of their constituents have less stake in preserving the United States or avoiding another economic meltdown than they have in promoting their anti-national agenda.  In essence, they are gambling with someone else’s money, since they win even if they (and we) go broke.  Boehner and McConnell have to decide whether to let them stay in the game, knowing they will flip the table if they get mad, or kick them out of the room so the party leaders can finish the game with the Democrats as strongly as they can.  Given the tensions in Team GOP, it is really hard to predict what its next move will be.  Are the Republicans going to play “Presidential Monopoly,” read the polls that show the public demands a solution, and try to find one?  Or are they going to play “Werewolf” and try to win by destroying the group?

The Democrats seem to be made up of some who mix of “Sim City” or “Civilization,” trying to build a strong nation by balancing taxes, infrastructure, military and economic development, while others play “Monopoly” and try to get as many government services (utilities and railroads) and different colors (purples, greens, etc.) as they can.  They don’t want to play “Werewolf” anymore, and are refusing to play anything if that is their only choice.  Given that the Democratic games are more pragmatic and less paranoid, they will probably seek to make some sort of a deal.  However, they are winning the “Monopoly” game and have little reason to give up.  Also, they may not fully realize that the their opponents are playing a different game, and may not want to “win” at all.

Since the Democrats assume that the Republicans are still playing Presidential Monopoly, as they are, they will interpret the GOP intransigence as a political tactic, one which is backfiring or which is designed to help particular Republican Congressmen but not the party as a group.  If the GOP leadership can rally the “moderates,” then this is in fact the game they will be playing, and at the last possible moment, when both sides believe they have extracted as much as they can from the other, they will end this.  But if the GOP is led by the Tea Party, the game will become more like Russian Roulette with one player who is suicidal and another who doesn’t realize the gun is really loaded.  The Tea Party and Evangelicals will gladly pull the trigger for both sides.


[1] All right, I can’t trademark “Deuteronomistic patriots;” nevertheless, I coined the phrase and I am laying claim to it. Until I drop anonymity, please footnote the phrase and attribute it to “Philosophical Scraps” if you use it.

[2] This sort of thinking underlies the claim by Rev. Falwell and Rev. Robertson that the 9/11 attacks took place because of the widespread feminism and liberalism of the United States in the 1990’s, that Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans because of the Gay Pride parade held in the French Quarter earlier that year, or that Hurricane Sandy was punishment for legalized abortion.

[3] See for example Deborah Caldwell’s exposé, “The Far-Right Christian Movement Driving the Debt Default,” Huffington Post, 10-14-2013 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-caldwell/christian-dominionism-debt-default-_b_4097017.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009 )

[4] Bruce Bartlett, “For Many Hard-Liners, Debt Default is the Goal;” New Republic 10-14-2013 (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/for-many-hard-liners-debt-default-is-the-goal/?partner=yahoofinance&_r=0 ) ; also Michael Lind, “The South is Holding America Hostage,” Salon, 10-13-2013 (http://www.salon.com/2013/10/13/the_south_is_holding_america_hostage/)

[5] Danny Shea, “Fox News Producer Caught Rallying 9/12 Protest Crowd in Behind-the-Scenes Video,” 11-19-2009, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html)

[6] Chadwick Harvey, “Tea Party Activists are just Evangelicals in Colonial Disguise;” PolicyMic 6-26-2012 (http://www.policymic.com/articles/10086/tea-party-activists-are-just-evangelicals-in-colonial-disguise)

[7] Sam Tnenhaus, “Original Sin:  Why the GOP Is and Will Continue to be the Party of White People;” New Republic, 2-10-2013 (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112365/why-republicans-are-party-white-people)

[8] Stan Greenberg, James Carville, and Erica Seifert, “Inside the GOP:  Report on Focus Groups with Evangelical, Tea Party, and Moderate Republicans;” Democracy Corps,10-3-2013 (http://www.democracycorps.com/Republican-Party-Project/inside-the-gop-report-on-focus-groups-with-evangelical-tea-party-and-moderate-republicans/)

[9] ANYONE who claims to be a Christian and to be a follower of Ayn Rand has definitely misread Ayn Rand.

UPDATE: Rumble 2012 review

October 18, 2012

UPDATE:  Rumble 2012 review—-fake news vs. real news

 

Last night I was watching the Nate Silver interview on The Daily Show (10/17/2012, see http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-17-2012/exclusive—nate-silver-extended-interview-pt–1 and follow the links for the web-only portions as well), and heard an Actual Guy Who Knows Things making the same point I reached by the end of my review of the O’Reilly/Stewart debate:  that the 24 hour news cycle has erased the distinction between “fake news” and “real news.”  I think I can safely say, read my review:  there’s something worthwhile in it.

As a philosopher, I’m interested in the whole process of distilling “truth” from “facts,” and how we can, should and do navigate our way through the Disinformation Age.  Any thoughts?

The Rumble in the Air Conditioned Auditorium 2012: O’Reilly vs. Stewart (review)

October 17, 2012

The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium:  O’Reilly vs. Stewart 2012

A Review

 

 

When I realized that I was one of the few people who had actually managed to watch the entire debate when it was broadcast live, I decided I should write something about it in my blog for the benefit of those who didn’t get to see it.  But then I couldn’t get it to download or to re-stream, and I hadn’t taken notes during the first showing, so I waited until I could watch it again.

First, let me provide a little background for anyone who might read this and not know what the heck I’m talking about.  On October 6, 2012, FOX News pundit Bill O’Reilly and The Daily Show’s fake news anchor Jon Stewart held a live debate in the Lisner Auditorium of George Washington University.  Anyone expecting a real spoof of politics and debate would probably have been disappointed; while both disputants showed considerable humor, the debate was real.  It was moderated by E. D. Hill, currently an anchor for CNN and formerly a reporter for FOX News, who seemed determined to keep a tighter reign than did Jim Lehrer at the Presidential debate three days earlier.  The first hour was done in (relatively) formal style, with both disputants standing at podiums responding to questions posed by the moderator, as well as replying to and rebutting one another.  Following precedent established with candidate Michael Dukkakis in the 1988 Presidential debates, the shorter disputant was allowed a boost; O’Reilly is somewhere between a foot to a person taller than Stewart, so he had a powered platform behind his podium to allow him to appear as tall or taller than O’Reilly at will.

It would be pointless to simply describe the debate, and beyond my powers of recall, and also a bit immoral.  The interview is still for sale at $4.95 (go to http://www.therumble2012.com/index.html for details), and half the profit goes to charity; so telling all the jokes would possibly spoil the experience for anyone who might purchase the download, and if it served as an alternative to purchasing then it would deprive those charities as well.  So I will confine myself to an evaluation of the three major participants, and their positions.

E. D. Hill took her role about as seriously as she should.  Yes, she introduced Jon Stewart as “a hobbit-like 5’7” tall,” but she also posed the questions and sought to hold the disputants to the time allotted for each topic.  This was before the Vice Presidential debate, but after Jim Lehrer had been trampled by Romney and Obama both; she was more assertive than Lehrer and perhaps less so than Martha Raddatz.

O’Reilly and Stewart showed their moderator more respect than did Romney and Obama, even when mocking her; in the context of the “real” debate O’Reilly’s expressions of contempt seemed more like parody than disrespect.  Both of them ignored the first question in order to give their opening statements; and in many ways I found the opening statements the most telling part of the evening.  O’Reilly is a staunch conservative, but is also a fairly independent mind.  He did not attempt to ignore or support Romney’s “47%” statement, but instead modified it; and that modification lies at the heart of his overall position.  O’Reilly stated that in fact there is about 20% of the nation who truly are lazy, feel entitled to free stuff, and couldn’t care less about the consequences for others.  He also said that number was growing, and that this represents a significant danger to our nation.  His primary concern, therefore, is irresponsibility.  He feels that Democrats should stop whining about Bush, who has been out of office for four years; after the first two years, you need to own up to your own responsibility for the state of affairs.  He claimed that liberals are fostering an entitlement mindset, and that it is necessary to curtail government services to force everyone to take personal responsibility.  Taking from the rich to give to the poor means taking from the responsible people to give to those who might not be responsible; and if the poor are to be helped, those that have should take responsibility to do so without being compelled by the government.  If the government gets involved, it will simply foster irresponsibility while delivering goods inefficiently and for political ends, and ultimately destroy the very producers it was counting on to fund things.

Stewart’s statement did not reply either to Ms. Hill or to Mr. O’Reilly.    Instead, he presented a long monologue describing “Bullshit Mountain.”  Its inhabitants, he said, live in a world where normal rules of facticity and logic do not apply.  On Bullshit Mountain, everything was wonderful until about four years ago, when a Kenyan-Fascist-Muslim-Socialist-Communist-Radical Racist was elected President and began destroying everything.  Before Obama, Congress and the President were bipartisan and effective and the economy was solid and we were respected in the world and every individual wanted nothing more than to work hard and lift himself up by his own bootstraps, and he could; now, totally because of one man, we’re polarized and paralyzed and lazy and worthless.  The real problem, Stewart argued, is a failure of our problem-solving mechanisms and the ability of the inhabitants of Bullshit Mountain to perceive or acknowledge reality.

In short, the two men were talking across each other.  O’Reilly was arguing ethics and Stewart epistemology; O’Reilly was arguing values and virtues while Stewart was arguing facts and history and practical solutions to the nation’s problems.  When they began to give real solutions, the two actually were fairly close on a number of issues.  O’Reilly was asked about partisanship, and blamed “haters and assassins” in the media who know they can make a lot of money simply by saying inflammatory things, regardless of truth.  He didn’t name any names and didn’t state any one ideology to which the haters belong.  I’m sure Stewart would agree; he has said much the same thing.  O’Reilly was specific enough to denounce the people who hate Obama and think he is evil and traitorous; he claimed himself to like Obama, while thinking his policies are misguided.  In this, he is clearly distancing himself from Hannity, Limbaugh and most other right-wing pundits, as well as the left-wingers he would describe as equally close-minded.  Stewart would agree with O’Reilly that the profit motive in news broadcasting has created a toxic atmosphere, where truth is second to showmanship and illuminating minds less important than enflaming passions.  Likewise, both men support our military and have taken concrete steps to help the troops in the field and after their return.  When I was a child, a “liberal” was someone who referred to our own soldiers as child-killers and rapists.  By those standards, there are almost no “liberals” left.  There are definite differences between the two; O’Reilly supports trickle-down economics, while Stewart supports a single-payer medical system.  But compared to the ideological schism of the 1960’s, today we hardly seem to be divided at all.  Both liberals and conservatives are patriotic, and at least some on both sides are God-fearing people.  Many of the liberal ideas of today, like the individual mandates in the Affordable Health Care act, were conservative ideas yesterday.

But the real difference between them was their agendas.  O’Reilly wanted to talk about values; on those grounds, he and Stewart were not identical but were not very far apart.  Stewart wanted to treat O’Reilly as “the mayor of Bullshit Mountain,” as if he were identical with everyone else at FOX News and the right-wing echo chamber.  O’Reilly sought to distance himself from some elements of the Right, but Stewart wanted to have that conversation and used O’Reilly as his target.  Stewart’s claim is that the Right exaggerates the problems America faces while simplifying the solution.  While America faces serious problems, they are the same sorts of problems we have always faced:  economic challenges, enemies abroad, questions of social justice and the nature of the social contract.  We have always had a large “entitlement” culture, from the time Europeans arrived in America and thought they were entitled to land occupied by other people.    But the Right speaks as if this never happened before, as if the world has gone completely to Hell just in the last few years, as if we are two weeks away from complete national collapse; and that if we simply give tax cuts to millionaires all these problems will be solved.  It is a combination of factual falsehoods about the past and present, and dubious (or magical) predictions and hopes for the future.

This strikes me as typical of the political debates today.  The so-called Left talks about solving problems, based on what has and what has not worked in the past.  Paraphrasing Stewart, I’m not for smaller or bigger government; I’m for better government.  The “Left” is the party that believes the government can solve problems, and that its job is to solve problems.  For this reason, Stewart emphasizes the need to know facts, to face facts and to act on them.  The Right is not really interested in the facts; the primary problem is not a problem of information but of values.  If we have the right values, we will solve our problems; therefore, we should have good values and then believe those truth claims that support our values.  O’Reilly is not really “the mayor of Bullshit Mountain.”  He does seem to choose to ignore the past failures of supply-side economics because it is most consistent with his ideal of individual responsibility; but in many cases, he is more interested in facts than many conservative pundits, and he is quite aware of this.  The leading citizens of Bullshit Mountain are people like “the assassins and haters,” birthers, paranoid conspiracy theorists, and the congressmen who sit on the House Science Committee while disbelieving science, and openly state that the reason they reject science is because it contradicts their values; for example:

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” U.S Rep. Paul Broun said in an address last month at a banquet organized by Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”[1]

 

It’s not that he has different evidence; it’s that he’s chosen to ignore evidence.  Like a good postmodern nihilist, he’s choosing which language-game he wants to play; and it isn’t the Science Game.  He is choosing what will count as believable based on what supports his religious values, not on the laws of cause and effect that govern in science or in normal daily experience, or the opinions of the vast majority of scientists.  That is the real key to “Bullshit Mountain.”  In Harry Frankfurt’s definitive tome on the subject, “bullshit” is defined as the assertion of facts in order to win arguments or status or some other reason, but regardless of whether what is said is true or not.  It isn’t a lie; the liar knows what the truth is but seeks to hide it for some reason.  The mistaken person thinks he or she is asserting the truth, but is simply wrong.  The bullshitter doesn’t care what the truth is.  I’m not sure what Paul Broun is engaged in qualifies as “bullshit.”  Is he trying to persuade, or to score points?  Or is he engaged in some other, completely unrelated activity?  It does seem clear that he is not making his judgment that these scientific foundational beliefs are “lies” is based on his superior knowledge of physics or biology; it is based on a theological/dogmatic judgment.  He wouldn’t say he was oblivious to truth; he would say that science is oblivious to real truth, ethical-dogmatic truth, while he is concerned with these important truths.  He wouldn’t say he is uninterested in solving problems facing the nation and world; he would say the most important problems are not nuts-and-bolts questions like what government policies will give the best possible lives to the most people, but rather the question of how to please God.  When Pat Robertson blamed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on feminism and Hurricane Katrina on legalized abortion, he clearly had a different strategy for solving the problems of protecting our nation from terrorism and natural disasters.  While the “liberal” believes that these things happen for strictly natural reasons and can only be addressed by a government that is robust enough to muster the physical resources required, Rev. Robertson believes these problems have a supernatural cause and can only be fixed supernaturally.

Stewart appears to believe the inhabitants of Bullshit Mountain are all willfully deluded for ideological gain; the world was wonderful, Obama ruined it, regardless of all possible facts to the contrary, so let’s get rid of Obama.  O’Reilly does not seem to be that deluded.  He doesn’t think Obama is a Kenyan or an al Qaeda infiltrator or anything of that sort.  He does have economic views that are disputable, but not insane.  He does believe small government and individual liberty are better.  But his initial impulse seems to be the moral concern.  That was his opening point and his recurring theme.  In that his primary interest is moral rather than factual or pragmatic, he has some kinship to the inhabitants of Bullshit Mountain.  And he does work at FOX News.  Stewart is more concerned with establishing a shared reality, something he quaintly calls “facts.”  His argument with the Right is not whether or not America is worth loving.  To some extent, it is over just how to love America best.  But really, Stewart has made a value judgment, the judgment that facts matter and that objective reality trumps what we think “ought” to be true.  Again, when I was a kid in the 1960’s and 1970’s, the notion that there was one reality which we all had to accept was considered a conservative notion; but now, it is the liberals who seem to be demanding everyone accept “the facts” and the conservatives who say, “I have my truths and you have yours.”

I cannot end without remarking on the greatest oddity of this debate:  that it took place.  Technically, it is true that Bill O’Reilly is part of the “entertainment” programming on FOX News.  But that is still FOX News.  Jon Stewart is on Comedy Central.  The fact that these two are treated as somehow equivalent is truly bizarre.  The line between “fake” news and “real” news has been obliterated.  O’Reilly has a good sense of humor, but he is professionally described as a “pundit.”  The dictionary definitions of “pundit” are either an expert, or someone who speaks authoritatively as if he or she were an expert (as when a college dropout with a history of drug abuse becomes a pundit and an authority figure).  In O’Reilly’s case, he is educated and intelligent, though not really an “expert” on all the subjects he comments on.  But he is not a “comedian.”  A comedian is one whose job is not to be right, or to be authoritative, but simply to be funny.  Somehow, right-wing pundits working for news organizations (whether FOX News, talk radio or both) came to be seen as morally and functionally equivalent to comedians, without anyone reflecting on the fact that the latter are professional fools while the former supposedly are not.  When Rush Limbaugh is criticized for saying something stupid and sexist, he is defended by supporters who say, “Well, look what Bill Maher said.”  An honorary member of the Republican Congressional Caucus, whose bust is in the Missouri State Hall of Fame, called by Ronald Reagan “the Number One voice for conservatism,” among his many accolades and awards, more powerful than many Republican elected leaders, who have more than once been forced to publicly apologize after getting on his wrong side—-this man is compared to a stand-up comedian and the male lead in “Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death.”  This is considered a defense!  When one praises or defends one’s “pundit, i.e. expert and/or authority” by comparing him or her to a “comedian, i.e. a professional entertainer who uses various verbal and physical means to be amusing,” one really insults the pundit.  Or rather, one reveals that we no longer draw a distinction between those who speak from authority and expertise versus those who speak from ignorance and foolishness.

The O’Reilly-Stewart debate did show that when ideological disputants are willing to attempt to find and abide by the same reality, and who are willing to respect their opponents and to laugh at themselves and admit at least some fallibility (in their allies if not in themselves), it is possible to have a civil and substantive discussion.  In that case, it might be able to find solutions to problems that give both sides what they need, at least sometimes.  As Stewart said, the problem-solving mechanisms of our society seem to be broken; but this debate showed that is possible to fix them.


[1] Dan Gilgoff, “Congressman Draws Fire for Calling Evolution, Big Bang ‘Lies from the Pit of Hell,”, CNN, 10/16.2012 (http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/congressman-draws-fire-for-calling-evolution-big-bang-lies-from-the-pit-of-hell)

Do you know what’s in the Health Care reform law?

July 14, 2012

Prove it!

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx?source=QL

I got 10 out of 10!  That’s better than 99.6% of Americans.  That proves, according to other surveys:

1.  I don’t watch FOX News.  Source:

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

2.  I don’t watch MSNBC  Same source.

3.  I’m a little bit lucky (I wasn’t completely certain on one question).

Try it!  It’s fun and depressing!

 

Since I’ve heard Mitt Romney, Rick Scott and every other Republican repeating more than one of the wrong answers on this quiz, I guess I’m smarter than the entire GOP leadership—-but then again, so are you, probably.  And for that matter, who knows whether the people who voted for the bill could get 100%?  But the Tea Party scores a failing grade for sure.

Would Ayn Rand join the GOP Today? (pt. 2: The Looters)

January 4, 2012

Would Ayn Rand join the GOP Today?

            The short answer:  No.

The longer answer:  No, no, a thousand times, no!

The still longer and fuller answer:  that will take awhile.

The Looters

“If some men attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud, by looting, robbing, cheating or enslaving the men who produce, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by their victims, only by the men who choose to think and to produce the goods which they, the looters, are seizing.  Such looters are parasites incapable of survival, who exist by destroying those who are capable, those who are pursuing a course of action proper to man.”  Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Rand is celebrated today for her denunciations of the “moochers and the leeches,” the poor who demand to be supported by the rich.  Less often repeated are her denunciations of “the looters and the thugs,” those who steal not through the welfare state but through criminality, or crooked laws, defrauding those who work to become rich off the labors of others.  Of course, Rand is no Marxist; she celebrates the entrepreneur and capitalist who take risks with their own talents or their own resources, and bear the costs of their own failures.  These are the responsible, productive individuals.  They deserve whatever their intelligence and industry brings them.  They choose not to be victims of others, and not to victimize others either.  Rand says that either is a denial of one’s true humanity, which is to say one’s rational nature.  To victimize others is not to survive as man qua man, since it is to live not as a human being but as a parasite.  To be human is to be rational and productive.  These are the traits that lead to survival of the human individual and species.  The looter, like a tapeworm, survives only because there is a productive being it can sap life from; as long as it kills its host slowly enough, it can live.  But the looters are ultimately destroying humanity.  One tick may not kill a dog, but a dog with enough ticks will bleed to death; and when the last dog is gone the ticks will die too.

For this reason, the rationally selfish person chooses to live by trade, not by looting.  Trade is the honest and open exchange of goods, services, talents and knowledge.  It strengthens the human race, and in doing so it strengthens every individual who participates in it.  As Rand puts it, the purpose of ethics is one’s own life and happiness; but the standard of ethics is human life.  What does not preserve and promote human life—-not just my life, but man qua man—-is not ethical.  So the moral person lives by trade and not by looting because this is what preserves human life, the life and continued existence of humanity.  That is the standard of what is ethical.  My own purpose may be my own preservation, but the measure of whether the means I would choose are proper is human life.  Rand thus starts from an egoistic purpose, it seems, but ends up sounding very much like Kant:  “The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—-and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.”  (“The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet Press, 1964:  p. 30).

Rand would approve of the one-percenter who earned his or her wealth and now resists giving it away to support the lazy leech.  The rich one has every right to give his or her wealth away voluntarily, but must resist being forced; not to resist is to betray one’s own human nature.  But “the principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material.  It is the principle of justice…..  A trader … does not switch to others the burden of his failures….” (pp. 34-35).  From the savings and loans crisis of the Reagan era (which cost 3.2% of our GDP) to ENRON to the TARP bailout (which is estimated to have cost us 1% of our GDP) and the other bailouts, it is clear that business in the USA is not being carried out under Rand’s principles of trade.  It is being carried out by the looters, under laws made by the looters and for the looters.  And whenever some regulation is proposed to prevent these CEOs and CFOs from gambling with other people’s money and keeping the winnings while sharing the losses, the lobbyists and the SuperPACs come out and make sure nothing comes of it.  Today, virtually every major banking institution suckles from the taxpayer’s teat.  By threatening to crash the entire world global economic system, rich banks and rich bankers have set themselves up with a sweet deal.  Today, the big banks borrow from the Fed at no interest, and then loan that money back to the government at interest.  The taxpayer’s money, that was supposed to allow banks to start lending again so the taxpayer could start borrowing and entrepreneurs could start investing and inventing and producing, is instead being recycled to pay huge bonuses to bankers.  It’s not the 1%, but the 0.1% that are pulling this scam.  Cut them off, and we go into a Second Great Depression.  Regulate them, says the GOP, and we’ll be squelching the “productive” class.  But when the GOP and FOX whines about the leeches draining the poor productive class, who are they defending?  Not the traders.  The SuperPAC money from the banking industry is raised from the looters, to pay for laws to protect the looters.  The fact is that at this point, the banking industry is funded and supported by the taxpayer.  They are both looters and leeches.   And the GOP has made itself the party that defends the anti-competitive monopoly in its efforts to squelch the small entrepreneur who tries to start a small business, the multinational corporation that dumps its wastes in drinking water and expects someone else to pay to clean it up, and the big manufacturer that accepts shipments from small businesses and then refuses to pay them for months at a time so it can use small businessmen as its own no-interest bank.  In short, the GOP is the party of the looters.  (The Dems take their share of money from looters, too, but they haven’t made defending the looters part of their stated party platform.)

From the Regan-Bush bailout of the S&Ls to the Bush bailout of the banks, the GOP has chosen to be the party of deregulation, not in the name of free markets but in the cause of crony capitalism and kleptocracy.  When the financial industry has been deregulated and allowed to take greater risks, the profits were raked in by the top executives while the risks were assumed by the taxpayers.  When polluters are deregulated, the profits go to the 0.1% while the costs in health and cleanup go to taxpayers.  Even Ron Paul has said that libertarian principles do not mean polluters can use their neighbors as mere means to their own ends.

Rand wrote that we should have real capitalism.  She would have defended Bush’s decision to let Lehman Brothers go under; the executives and the stockholders who hired them should go bankrupt for their own follies.  But this also nearly destroyed the nation’s economy, so the decision was made not to allow any more major financial institutions to fail.*  Fine:  I’m not looking forward to a Second Great Depression either.  But would Rand really demand that we allow a few reckless, foolish looters to destroy the wealth of millions of rational, productive individuals?


* Instead FOX News defended paying the executives big bonuses, with taxpayer dollars, because it is necessary to attract “top talent.”  Talent for what?

Would Ayn Rand Join the GOP Today? (pt. 1: The Mystics)

December 29, 2011

Would Ayn Rand Join the GOP Today?

            The short answer:  No.

The longer answer:  No, no, a thousand times, no!

The still longer and fuller answer:  that will take awhile.

Mysticism

“Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live—whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.”  Ayn Rand, “Faith and Force:  The Destroyers of the Modern World,” in Philosophy:  Who Needs It

            Ayn Rand was a vigorous opponent of religious belief, and an ardent advocate for scientific reason.  To Rand, reason is the use of logic and experience to understand the world of fact.  Religion is “mysticism.”  While the rational person pursues knowledge of the world as it really is, using the essential human quality of reason, the religious person (or “mystic”) relies on supernatural awareness, revelation, and on the word of spiritual authorities.  The rational person believes that this life is or can be good, if we use reason as it was meant to be used:  to understand and control the world for the good of human beings.  The river floods, Rand writes, and animals die; the river floods, and humans build dykes and levees.  The rains stop, and animals die; the rain stops, and humans build canals and cisterns.  To be a human (man qua man) is to use one’s reason for one’s survival.  To choose any other way to survive, whether hedonism or religious revelation and obedience, is to be subhuman, to fall back to the level of the irrational animal.

The rational person values this world; the mystic hates life and this world.  The religious person proclaims that the most important thing is to please and obey God.  What our “natural” self loves —– self-reliance, enjoyment of life and its pleasures, ambition and striving and achievement, pride in one’s own ability and success —- this is sin, this is arrogance.  What is good is to admit one is weak, stupid, impotent, corrupt, unable to know anything except what one is told, unable to enjoy what is truly good while taking pleasure in what is evil, unable to do anything meaningful for oneself.  While the rational person values what leads towards survival and flourishing, the mystic values the afterlife, Heaven or Nirvana or Paradise, and those virtues that one can live out in this world that will lead one away from this world and towards the afterlife—in other words, away from life and towards death.

The rational person values knowledge, logic, self-reliance; the mystic values ignorance, reliance on the authority of others, and supernatural inspiration and revelation.  If our reason and science contradict our religious dogma, we must reject reason and embrace faith.  Rand says that reason is the key to survival.  This is true in two ways.  First, pragmatically, we live by following reason.  Reason tells us about the world; to ignore reason is to ignore reality.  This will surely lead to destruction.  Second, the essence of humanity (man qua man) is rationality.  To refuse to be rational is to refuse to be human.  You cannot survive as a human while rejecting what it is to be human.  Even if you continue to physically exist, it is an animal’s life, not a person’s; as man qua man you’re already dead.  But the mystic is precisely one who relies on irrational impulses and feelings and whims.  The mystic may begin by relying on his or her own “religious inspiration,” but in the end the mystic surrenders his or her individual thought completely to the authority of another, either a single authority like a pope or swami or, particularly in Protestantism, surrendering to the standards of the community of faith, what “they” say is true and good.

The Republican Party today is dominated by mystics, known as “the Evangelical movement.”  It is hard to find a Republican politician today who will admit to believing in evolution, or climate change, to name just two truths proven by the most rigorous scientific methods and endorsed by all scientists who have not embraced revelation over experimentation and remain scientists in name only.  And these are two truths that are vital to our survival.  To deny evolution is to deny, for example, that germs really evolve due to our abuse of antibiotics; the emergence of untreatable diseases is simply the mysterious wrath of a vengeful god.   To deny global warming is to choose policies that may make the planet unlivable, while insisting that the dying oceans, the droughts, the hurricanes, blizzards, and scorching heat which climatologists predicted decades ago are simply the signs that the End of Days is upon us and soon all the good people will be raptured away to a beautiful garden to live forever.

The rampant distrust of science is truly mystifying.  The U.S.A. became the greatest nation on Earth by embracing science.  Our scientific know-how gave us the technology to bomb, invade and conquer Nazi Germany.  That same scientific genius, and government backing for scientific research gave us the means to defeat Imperial Japan without needing to invade its home islands.  We went to the moon, something no other nation has done for forty years (and counting).  We won the Cold War because we won the science race, both in economic technology and in weapons of war such as Stealth bombers and the SDI.  It simply became too expensive for the USSR to try to keep up with our ability to invent and produce new technologies.  Rand would be the first to say that the U.S.A. won because it embraced reason, while the Soviets embraced irrationality; and now that we have the victory politicians dreamt of for so many years, the Republican Party seems hell-bent on throwing it all away and embracing irrationalism.

The distrust of science is built on the fear of the peer review process.  When one scientist makes a claim, others test that claim experimentally and publish articles supporting or refuting that claim.  Since only scientists can do this (that’s why it’s called “peer” review), politicians who lack the scientific background to understand the claim in the first place simply brand the whole thing a conspiracy by the brainiacs to dupe all of us good, moral, religious, righteously ignorant people.  The same Republican Party that says we don’t need to regulate businesses because competition will keep abuses in check, rejects the scientific process of peer review because it relies on scientists to prevent the abuses of other scientists.  Competition between businesses will cure all ills; but competition between scientists is something Republicans deny even exists.  But in fact, we don’t even need to wait for peer review to make at least preliminary judgments. Anyone who is willing to learn and willing to accept reality, and who is capable of graduating high school, is able to choose to learn enough science to grasp the main points of evolution or climate change, or many other big, important scientific arguments.  We may not know for sure which side is right, but we can at least evaluate whether an argument is plausible and logical.  Or, as Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour does, you can simply reject science and scientists if you have a “gut feeling” that scientists are lying, with no attempt to prove anything.  That, says Rand, is the way of the mystic, the way of the animal, the way that leads away from Life and towards Death.

If Rand were alive today, she would not be acceptable to the Republican party.  It is dominated by the mystics, by the willfully ignorant, who reject reason and the values of life in favor of obscurantism, authoritarianism, irrationality and death—-both death of the believer, who wants only to leave this world and be with God, and death of this world which is “passing away” and awaits the Second Coming to end all troubles.  At the very least, Rand writes, the rational person in such an irrational situation must state, clearly and directly, “I do not agree with you about this.”  But the Republican Party today is the party of ideological purity.  The Tea Party, FOX model/spokepersons masquerading as news anchors, radio stars and bloggers may love to mine Ayn Rand for sound bites and to echo her denunciations of “moochers and leeches,” but not one of them will denounce the mysticism that rules the GOP and has for more than forty years.  No doubt she would approve of Republican policies such as ending Social Security and Medicare and taxes on the wealthy.  However, even if she made common cause with them on these and similar issues, she would have to denounce them for the religious superstition (in her estimation) that dominates them and undermines everything good they might stand for.  And if she were alive today, the best she would receive would be occasional appearances on FOX News as some sort of fringe character.  Her support for free-market principles would make her a Republican the way his support for the war in Afghanistan made Christopher Hitchens a Republican.